Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christianity

  • St. Gregory the Theologian on Ransom and the Bronze Serpent

    I was delighted to find this quote via the Orthodox Study Bible, though I must add to my complaints about that edition the fact that they cite church fathers by name, but without providing a reference to the particular work.  A visit to the St. Pachomius Library and then ewtn.com resolved the latter question.

    The quote is from St. Gregory the Theologian’s Second Paschal Oration, XXII:

    TWENTY-TWO

Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most
people, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into.  To Whom was
that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was it shed?  I mean
the precious and famous Blood of our God and Highpriest and Sacrifice.
We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and
receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness.  Now, since a ransom
belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this
offered, and for what cause?

If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage!  If the robber receives
ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself,
and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for
whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone
altogether.

But if to the Father, I ask first, how?  For it was not by Him that we
were being oppressed; and next, On what principle did the Blood of His
Only begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even
Isaac, when he was being offered by his Father, but changed the
sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim?  Is it not
evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor
demanded Him; but on account of the Incarnation, and because Humanity
must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us
Himself, and overcome the tyrant, and draw us to Himself by the
mediation of His Son, Who also arranged this to the honour of the
Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys in all things?

So much we have said of Christ; the greater part of what we might say
shall be reverenced with silence.  But that brazen serpent [Num. 21:9]
was hung up as a remedy for the biting serpents, not as a type of Him
that suffered for us, but as a contrast; and it saved those that
looked upon it, not because they believed it to live, but because it
was killed, and killed with it the powers that were subject to it,
being destroyed as it deserved.  And what is the fitting epitaph for
it from us?  "O death, where is thy sting?  O grave, where is thy
victory?"  Thou art overthrown by the Cross; thou art slain by Him who
is the Giver of life; thou art without breath, dead, without motion,
even though thou keepest the form of a serpent lifted up on high on a
pole.

    There are two elements that particularly attracted me to this quote.  The OrthSB quotes the final section about the serpent, which goes well with this week’s lectionary texts.  I like the idea that it was precisely the fact that the serpent on the pole is dead that provides the healing.  He is a defeated serpent.  It would also provide some interesting context to the worship of the serpent up to Hezekiah’s time, that is until Hezekiah broke it up (2 Kings 18:4).  This differs from part of the interpretation I provided yesterday in my lectionary notes.

    If you’re missing out on the eastern church fathers regarding the atonement, you are missing out on a lot.

  • In Which a Calvinist Annoys and Delights Me

    Or you can call him “Reformed.” I personally dislike that particular term because to many people it implies that other protestants never passed through the reformation, that only the Calvinists “reformed.” All of which can also ignore the adjustments in Catholic theology since the time of the reformation. But that’s all a side issue, and I’m going to use the term anyhow, as those who keep up with theology at all are aware of the current meaning.

    I think that Adrian Warnock has an exceptional ability to pick out annoying portions of quotes, as he does in his post Piper on Leading People Towards Reformed Theology. Now I don’t mean annoying in the sense that it is somehow convicting. I mean it in the sense that it frames the opposition inappropriately, in my view, and in this case it looks a bit arrogant.

    Now having read Adrian’s extract, I clicked on through to Piper’s original words, and while they still contain that which annoys me, to which I’ll respond in a moment, they come in a much better context. Piper, who is an exceptional preacher in my opinion, even or especially when I’m busy disagreeing with him, is providing advice for a Reformed pastor who finds himself pastoring an Arminian congregation. His advice is excellent. I’d advise any pastor who has a congregation that disagrees with him in theology to follow it.

    I think it would work just as well for an Arminian pastor who ends up pastoring a predominantly Reformed congregation, or any pastor who ends up pastoring a congregation that is not in tune with his theology. I’d like to recommend his advice to those United Methodist pastors who end up in a congregation that wants to be entertained, while the pastor wants to become more God-centered. Be who you believe you’re supposed to be. If certain aspects of theology are too difficult or controversial, focusing on God and who God is will be an excellent place to start.

    Similarly, if you’re a liberal pastoring a conservative congregation, you too can focus on God. I assume that if you’re a pastor, you believe that the social imperatives you accept result from who God is and what God desires. So preach about who God is.

    Of course, as Piper notes as well, there may be a time to move on, and I personally would add that one shouldn’t seek out such a mismatch. But I know of a number of United Methodist ministers who feel very challenged by the beliefs (or lack of same) in their congregations, yet believe strongly they are called by God to be where they are.

    All those parts of Piper’s post are a delight. I’m not going to try to quote from it. You need to read the whole thing. In a few paragraphs, Piper gives all of us good advice–provided we ignore the slanted Reformed and Arminian bias, to which I now turn my attention.

    Piper says:

    In other words, a Reformed position mainly means, God is really big, really strong, really powerful, really knowledgeable, really wise, really great, really weighty, and he is going to be big in this service, and we’re going to make a big deal out of God here. There are a lot of born-again Arminian people who like that. It’s because they don’t see the implications of their theology.

    The bottom line here is that this is not really the main Reformed position, at least not in distinction to other positions. I normally like to let people define themselves, but if that definition includes “unlike me” I am quite prepared to object. I too believe God is strong, knowledgeable, wise, and weighty, and you can put however many “really’s” in front of each word, because “infinite” licenses you to do so. I think the worship service should center around divine things as well.

    Arminian theology doesn’t imply anything else either. You see, “God is sovereign” means that God gets to do what God wants, and that includes anything whatsoever that God wants to do, including ordaining free will. Somehow some Calvinists think that predestination gives greater glory to God because it takes human beings out of the equation. But you don’t give greater glory by saying something false about a person or thing. If I praise my hammer as a saw, I’m just being silly. It won’t make it a saw, and it won’t make anyone regard my hammer more highly because of its saw-like attributes.

    I would note the condescension in the final sentence of the quote about us illogical Arminians. It may seem nice to give us the excuse of ignorance or blindness, but it seems to replace a certain spiritual arrogance with an intellectual variety.

    That doesn’t answer the question of who is correct, however, because my argument cuts both ways. If I’m wrong about free will, I do not increase God’s glory by proclaiming it either. That’s beyond the scope of this particular post.

    This ties in with my current series on Interpreting the Bible, and particular my last post in which I said:

    Now how does this apply to my test passages? I want to make clear here that the problem with the passages I cited is not that I don’t like what they say. My feelings about what a passage says do not impact what it’s now dead author meant to say. The ancients said many things that I don’t like. God is represented as saying things that I don’t like in scripture. My dislike of the statement doesn’t alter the intent of that statement.

    When we phrase the problem in that way we open things up for non-Christians to point out that we are simply taking what we like from scripture, for more conservative Christians to suggest that we are discarding passages at will, and for those more liberal to suggest that we haven’t moved far enough.

    The inverse is also possible–when one presents a problem of interpretation which involves an apparent contention of two views in scripture, it is quite easy for one’s opponent to represent this as a problem of trying to discard something one doesn’t like.

    But my major problem with predestination is not that I don’t like it. I admit I don’t, but I also don’t like the command to “take up my cross” and I think that one is absolutely valid and binding! My problem is that I think the doctrine of predestination, as stated in the Westminster Confessions, misrepresents God, who God claims God is.

    So please do go on proclaiming the sovereignty of God. Make God-centered worship services. If you’re an Arminian who has somehow become pastor to a church of Calvinists, do the same. Make your worship services God-centered.

    I am reminded of a friend who was discussing creation and evolution with me who proposed the same type of question. “How can this be reconciled with the Biblical picture of a loving God?” he asked me. Well, that is a difficulty, but it is not a difficulty that will alter the facts on the ground. When you get right down to it, things like the flood and hell fire provide at least as much reason to question one’s picture of God. And evolution occurred (or not) whether I believe it, like it, ignore it, or abhor it.

    Even the Wesleyan-Arminian view of choice leaves many wondering. How can a choice, even by a prevenient-grace-enabled, yet finite human, settle an eternal destiny? Is it fair for God to allow such an uninformed choice to result in eternal consequences? Under this view, were the sinner permitted to look into the pits of hell when making the decision, would it be the same? Of course the word “fair” here begs for definition, but I’m using it because I’m intentionally framing this in a form based on human feeling. The Bible proclaims that God is just, which may not seem fair!

    No, it’s not a question of just how sovereign God is. It’s a question of what we believe God actually has done. I think the evidence, both scriptural and historical, indicates God has, in his sovereign will, left a great deal more to humanity than we would like. But whether we like it or not, God, by definition, gets to make the ultimate choices.

  • The Ministry of Complaining

    I once preached a sermon by that title, and my main point was simply that complaining can be a valuable activity. We need people who notice things that are wrong and are willing to point them out. We need critics. I was reminded of that sermon today when I read the post Clergy Haters from Adventures in Revland.

    There are indeed people who are just going to complain. If you’re a pastor, and new members show up tearing down their previous pastor, beware! In some cases they may have an honest complaint and you may do better. But more often than not, the complainer is going to keep on complaining, only now it will be about you.

    I recall coding a small program together with one of the toughest critics I have ever known. We were doing some simulation. I would propose an algorithm, and he would shoot it down. I’d modify it and he’d explain why it just wouldn’t work. From time to time he had suggestions, but he was rarely satisfied even with his own suggestions. I would finally propose something that was close enough, based on both our input, and once he was that close he would polish it off. I must note that he was the better programmer of the two of us. His criticism, however, was one of two most critical elements for the project.

    But complaining is rarely a ministry. Some might even complain (!) about my use of the word “complain” in this context. But I rather like the effect, so words are just going to have to mean what I want them to, nothing more, nothing less, for the duration of this post! Why is it that pointing out faults and failings is viewed so negatively?

    When I have a manuscript to edit and proofread, I will pay people to read and mark the errors in the manuscript. They’re really useful people: proofreaders. What they do is point out faults and failings, much like complainers do.

    So what’s the difference between those folks and the ones you don’t really want in your church or business?

    When I was younger, I was always told that there was a difference between constructive criticism and destructive criticism. Constructive criticism, I was told, involves having a solution to suggest to the problem, and not just pointing it out and leaving it at that.

    I’ve had a problem with that for years. I can call the power company and point out that the electricity is off without having any idea what to do about it. As an editor, I can point out a section in a manuscript that is unclear, without necessarily giving the proper wording. In fact, in practice how I approach that depends on the particular author. For one person I might rewrite the passage and let them accept or reject it. For another I might just say, “This is unclear. You might want to work on it a bit.” It just depends on what gets creative juices flowing.

    [For those who are wondering, I have neither proofreaders nor editors for this blog. All unclear passages are the product of my own arguably slightly deranged mind.]

    But I’ve found something better to distinguish complaining as a vice and complaining as a ministry: The person(s) to whom you present your complaint.

    In my sermon I held up the “blue book” which was our church directory. I opened it to the section that listed the committee chairs and members. I pointed out that there were people who were charged with the various ministries and activities of the church. “To make your complaints into a ministry,” I told the congregation, “you first have to take them to the right people.”

    You see, I had a great example handy. I had been leading a Bible study group. The chair of the Staff-Parish Relations committee attended because she was interested in joining. (For my non-Methodist readers, replace “Staff-Parish Relations Committee” with whatever group of people deals with the staffing of your church and interfaces between the paid staff and the members.) A massive complaint session broke out in the study group. I can’t even remember what brought it on, but it was something in the passage we were studying that the group members felt applied to their church. They were pretty negative.

    After a bit I pointed out that we had the SPR chair in the room, and perhaps they should address their comments to her. Now in case you’re thinking that the complaint session broke out because she was there, it turned out that nobody else knew she was the SPR chair. I will provide the excuse that she had only been in that position for a couple of months, but still…

    She immediately said that if they had suggestions or complaints that she would be willing to write them down and deal with them. She already had a pen and paper out and was ready to write. But she pointed out that they had yet to provide her with anything specific that she could actually address. She asked for the specifics or offered to meet with anyone who needed to present something in a private setting.

    Silence descended on the room. So far as I know, no appointments resulted from the meeting. You see, those folks wanted to complain, but they were much less anxious to sit down with someone who was ready to hear them and ready to take action. One problem was that they weren’t very clear on what was bothering them. But I think there was also the simple fact that it’s easy to complain in general to people in general, but when you start complaining to the person with the power, you’re putting yourself on the line.

    I don’t want to downplay the usefulness of combining your complaint with positive comments on things that deserve them and with suggested solutions. But you should also be ready to have your suggestions set aside for ideas brought by others.

    I must tell one other story here about taking suggestions and complains. I once discussed the worship service at my church with my pastor over lunch. We were discussing how to improve a particular service, and grabbing a convenient napkin and pen I outlined five ideas I had. There were things I didn’t like about the service and these were ideas to improve it.

    The pastor implemented changes, five for five. Each change was recognizably related to one of my suggestions, but each had been modified and, I must say, substantially improved. They fit better into the worship setting and connected with the members better than what I had suggested. Basically, that pastor took seed from what I said and grew something much better. The congregation started thanking the pastor for the improved service.

    What did he do then? He gave me credit for the whole thing! If you’re a pastor or a leader and you want to improve the “ministry of complaint” in your church, organization, or business, try that approach.

    Turning complaint into a ministry requires courage. One of the things my wife and I determined shortly after we got married was that we weren’t going to answer for each other when we write, speak, or teach. You many wonder why not. Do we not support one another in our respective ministries and calling? Indeed we do! Are we embarrassed by what one or the other teaches? Well, occasionally, but that’s usually because we’re telling stories on one another. More than one weekend seminar at which we both spoke has been generously seasoned with stories of our courtship!

    But we discovered quite early that in places where people wanted to complain, certain folks would come to me to discuss what Jody had to say. It sometimes happened the other way, but it may be a comment on church culture that it was more likely someone was coming to me. In general, it wasn’t clarification they wanted. The undertone was that I needed to straighten my wife out on some point.

    I should note here that one doesn’t straighten my wife out. She’s actually quite teachable, but you better line your ducks up in a row and get them quacking in unison. Then she’ll straighten herself out once she’s fully convinced. But at the same time each of us is quite capable of responding to questions put directly to us. As soon as I perceived that there were people who thought they could tell me that my wife was wrong and that I’d somehow go and take their complaint to her, I made it my policy to simply say, “If you have a question about what Jody said (or wrote) go ask her.” Nobody who first came to me ever has gone on to take their question to her.

    We were having a discussion about that the other night and it brought me to this point of courage. Can you take your complaint to the actual person you want to complain about? Can you explain it to them? Sometimes there are privacy issues. Sometimes there are issues of retaliation. But most of the time, especially when the complaint is about a pastor, I think there are simply courage issues. The complainer wants to get someone else to do the hard work of telling the pastor he’s wrong about something, not to mention avoiding the embarrassment of finding out it wasn’t the pastor who was wrong, but rather the complainer.

    To be a ministry, your complaint needs to be honest, it needs to be brought to the right person, and you need to bring it with the right attitude. It’s a shock, but the complainer could, in fact, be wrong. At the same time, an honest complaint needs to be heard and dealt with. A little bit of courage to face the person against whom one has a complaint will go a long way in improving your own success, and that of your organization.

  • Christian Carnival CCLXVII Posted

    … at Christ’s Bridge.

  • Leviticus 6:8-13

    Baker takes a series of short sections here, and I’m not grouping them into any larger passage, because I’m under some pressure and these short sections are working for me right now.

    Let me note also that while the electronic edition of Rahlf’s LXX that I’m using today (GnomeSword) follows the English verse divisions, the print edition of Rahlf’s follows the Hebrew division.  So the passage there is 6:1-6.

    The idea of having a fire from sacrifice going on 24 hours a day doesn’t sound much like modern worship, but there are really two key elements in this passage that I think can be applied to modern worship:

    1. The fire burns continuously.  Three times in the LXX text we read that it is never to go out.
    2. There is a continuing ritual for keeping it clean.  There is care taken in carrying out this command as with every other one in Leviticus.

    There appears to be an error in the notes of the Orthodox Study Bible, which bases the notes on the English verses, and thus the notes on our passage for today indicate they are about 6:9.  But they are interesting, and connect this daily sacrifice with the continual offering of Christ in heaven.  The continuous worship provides an “open door for uninterrupted worship of God and fellowship with Him” only now this is through the sacrifice of Jesus.

    Milgrom adds an interesting note.  With Baker, I have emphasized the continual worship, and I think this is an important point.  But Milgrom points out:

    … The sacrifices offered up at the inauguration of the public cult were consumed miraculously by a divine fire (9:24), and it is this fire which is not allowed to die out so that all subsequent sacrifices might claim divine acceptance… (p. 389, emphasis in original)

    This raises another point to me for the modern church.  How careful are we with the spiritual fires that God lights?  We have waves of revival and then for various reasons we let them die out or treat them with contempt.  There’s a “fire” that was lit in Christianity back with Jesus and then at Pentecost.  But we often neglect one end or the other, either the connection back to that original flame, or the need to keep it actively burning in our modern world.  Both are necessary to keep up the continuing fire.

    Abbreviations:

    OSB – Orthodox Study Bible

    NISB – New Interpreter’s Study Bible

    Milgrom – Milgrom, Jacob.  Anchor Bible:  Leviticus 1-16.

    Baker – Leviticus portion written by David H. Baker, of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

    Chapter 6 deals with sacrifices for sins that appear to be quite deliberate.

  • Leviticus 4:1-5:13

    It is not entirely helpful to include these two sections under the same heading, but there is certainly a break between 5:13 and 5:14, so the division is understandable as Baker does it.

    We’re moving here to sacrifices that are required, first for inadvertent acts in chapter 4, and then for acts of omission that result in prolonged impurity (Milgrom: 307ff), only some of which are inadvertent in chapter 5.  Milgrom maintains, I think convincingly, that the distinction in chapter 5 is that the acts in question result in prolonged impurity, and prolonged impurity gets worse.

    Baker does well in presenting the major lesson I think we can take from these chapters, that wrongs are not just a personal thing, but they have a lasting impact on others.  We have a tendency to think that if something was a mistake there is no real guilt attached.  “I goofed,” is supposed to forgive all.  Here errors, most notably amongst the leadership, even if inadvertent, are highlighted as damaging the entire congregation and particular as polluting the sanctuary, and thus the congregation’s relationship with God.

    There is a secondary point, in that chapter 5 provides gradated levels of offerings and includes one even the poorest could bring–a grain offering.  I think this should be discussed in terms of atonement, in which we regularly quote Hebrews 9:22, which in turn quotes Leviticus 17:11.  Perhaps while blood provides the strongest metaphor for atonement, it is not the absolute requirement that some make it.  An exception to the blood sacrifice as in Leviticus 5:11-13, would not in that case be a minor point.  I’ll discuss this further when we get to Leviticus 17:11.

    The OSB emphasizes the difference between the sins of the priesthood and the laity, and quotes St. John Chrysostom thus:

    Wishing to show that sins receive more serious punishment by far when they occur in the case of the priest than in the case of the laity, Moses enjoins as great a sacrifice to be offered for the priest as for the whole people, and this amounts to a proof on his part, that the wounds of the priesthood need more assistance, that is, as great as those of all the people together.”

    OSB further applies this to the modern priesthood as well.  I could wish they would both quote the fathers more and would indicate the particular work.  In this case I have been unable to find the reference by search at CCEL–I’m probably doing something wrong.

    Again, I commend Baker for providing the elements that a preacher would need quickly and with the minimum of fuss.  You will frequently find you want to know more, but there are other reference works for that purpose.

    Abbreviations:

    OSB – Orthodox Study Bible

    NISB – New Interpreter’s Study Bible

    Milgrom – Milgrom, Jacob.  Anchor Bible:  Leviticus 1-16.

    Baker – Leviticus portion written by David H. Baker, of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

  • Interpreting the Bible VI – Introducing some Test Passages

    I’ve been delinquent on this series since January 24, but here goes again. My major point has been to show first that there is no obvious interpretation which one should take from the Bible, but rather that how one applies the Bible to one’s life, if at all, is based on an interpretive framework.

    It’s generally not so much that we cannot determine what a particular author meant to say, though that can be difficult. For example, the arguments over how literally one should take the first 11 chapters of Genesis are all based on a certain amount of evidence. The literary form is debatable, which is demonstrated by the number of people who debate it.

    What is most difficult, however, is determining how something applies to another time, if at all. We all have things we ignore from scripture. I’m blogging through Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy over on my Participatory Bible Study Blog right now, and those books contain many things that Christians do not do, and do not believe they have to do. In fact, it is so ingrained in Christian thought that animal sacrifices, for example, don’t apply to us, that often people don’t even think of it as something they ignore. They will tell me that’s not a real example–it’s too obvious. But the fact that Seventh-day Adventists, for example, keep Saturday as the Sabbath shows that we don’t all agree on where the line is drawn. Further, other small groups keep certain other laws or observe feasts.

    But to get to the idea of test examples, there are two very interesting topics on which Christians debate, but which tend to result in some interesting interpretation.

    The first of these examples is homosexuality. In almost any discussion of gay and lesbian rights in the church, Leviticus 18:22 will surface somewhere. It’s one of those, “But it’s obvious! The Bible says it right here!” sorts of texts. Now my purpose is not to try to tie the entire issue to this one text.

    In my experience, however, I’ve encountered an interesting phenomenon. If I ask the person who has just referred to Leviticus to read Leviticus 19:33-34, which is often just across the page–it is in the Bible I’m using right now–the tone changes. “Well,” I am told, “that passage obviously doesn’t apply today.” The argument usually has to do with welfare and how aliens might get government money to which they are not entitled.

    Now it’s quite possible that one passage applies and one doesn’t, but that isn’t an adequate hermeneutical argument. It doesn’t deal with various reasons one might find to consider Leviticus 18:22 equally inapplicable, for example. And just where does the idea that having some of your money go to people who are not legally entitled to it come from? There are, after all, many other things called “abominations” in Leviticus, yet we don’t avoid them.

    This leads me to ask this of any set of principles of interpretation: Can these principles explain why one passage is applicable and one is not?

    You’ll find that disagreement on that point lies behind many, many debates about scripture, especially debates that are particularly intractable. One side accuses the other of ignoring scripture, while in turn the second side is quite certain the first is intentionally misrepresenting their position. This is because the two don’t use similar principles.

    Once you have identified the principles being used, the next good question is just how those principles are derived. Often, the practical principle that people apply is simply whether something sounds good. “Love your enemies (Matthew 5:44) is good and literally applicable (except when you really don’t want to), whereas cutting off your hand is not (Matthew 5:30).

    Which examples lead me to the second test case. Can your approach to interpretation deal with Numbers 31 in relation to Matthew 5, or perhaps more importantly 1 John 4:13-21. You’ll have to read Numbers 31 for yourself, but I’ll just let you know that in it Moses is quite angry at the way in which the Israelites have not killed an adequate number of women and children in battle.

    In the following posts, which I hope will follow more quickly than this one did, I will look at those two issues and the principles of interpretation that might be involved. For better or worse, I must tell you now that I doubt anyone will consider my approach “obvious.” But that’s OK. I don’t consider anyone else’s all that obvious either!

    Previous posts in this series:

  • Christian Carnival CCLXVI Posted

    … at C.Orthodoxy.

  • Leviticus 2 – Offering Food

    There’s a bit of a change of gears in the second chapter of Leviticus, which contains only food sacrifices.  (See Leviticus 1.  Abbreviations at the end of the post.)  These sacrifices are most commonly not offered because of some sin or impurity, but rather as sacrifices of thanksgiving or for some celebration.

    I think that if most Christians were asked to do a word association, they would think of “animal” very quickly in relation to “sacrifice.”  That’s because they are very much used to the link between animal sacrifice, sin, and the sacrifice of Jesus.  That link is not without merit, but the temple services were so much more than animal sacrifices for sin.

    Baker gets less new out of this chapter than out of the first one, though he does mention the meticulous directions for the sacrifices because “it’s human nature for people to wriggle their way out of any obligation that might cost them something.”  That’s a good point about people in general, though I’m not sure it’s a major point to be drawn from this chapter.

    The difficulty for anyone trying to teach from these passages is that especially these first few chapters are much like notes for priests and presumably worshipers, though the latter might have gotten the answers indirectly.  Supposing you took all the liturgical directions for your church for a year and put them in a book.  This would probably be quite useful to the next worship leader, but it wouldn’t make engaging reading for most church members.

    Nonetheless, one could learn a great deal about liturgy by reading such a book.  But if you were going to use a portion as a text for a lecture on liturgy, what would you assign?  Doubtless the instructions for various weeks would contribute to the topic.

    This is similar to the problem of teaching from Leviticus.  You have quite a number of cryptic instructions, and many of the lessons don’t come through until you have the broader picture.  I’m thinking as I go through this book about using a more visual approach to teaching.  Certainly many people use tabernacle models and so forth, and that would help, but perhaps a study could start with an overview of key points, trying to produce a general picture of a year of worship, then focusing on individual aspects, and finally drawing lessons for specific aspects of worship, such as atonement and forgiveness, thanksgiving and celebration, characteristics of the worship experience, living in a way that is conscious of God’s presence, and connecting worship with history.

    I’ll continue to comment on these ideas as I continue to write, but there are a couple of thoughts from the resources I’m using that I’d like to mention.

    First, Baker comments that “the major difference between this sacrifice and the previous was that here there was no blood shed, and as a result, there was no atonement (1:4; Heb 9:22)” (p. 27).

    I find this rather interesting in consideration of Lev. 5:11-13, which provides an alternative of a grain offering for animal sacrifices, which clearly refers to both atonement and forgiveness.  I’ll discuss this more when we get to that chapter, though I did look ahead and did not see any discussion of the matter in Baker.  NISB notes that grain offerings could substitute for animal sacrifices for the poor with equally little discussion.

    Milgrom does discuss the issue of blood in atonement and various other uses and I will include some of his comments at the appropriate time.

    The OSB was quite interesting, with its unabashedly Christological interpretation.  The grain offering “pictures Christ as the totally acceptable grain offering to God” (p. 119), paralleled with John 12:24.  In addition, the grain offering is related to the faithful in Christ and their service.  Metaphors are wonderful that way–multiple meanings!  The oil is the Holy Spirit, and the salt represents the “whole spiritual meditation of the scriptures” (p. 120).

    While I would hardly see this passage as pointing forward in that sense, looking back I can see that the grain offering might will provide an excellent background for understanding some of the bread passages in the gospel of John.

    I also note for the record that again the OSB works out much better when I don’t read the translation!

    Abbreviations:

    OSB – Orthodox Study Bible

    NISB – New Interpreter’s Study Bible

    Milgrom – Milgrom, Jacob.  Anchor Bible:  Leviticus 1-16.

    Baker – Leviticus portion written by David H. Baker, of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

  • Worship: Few Words, Boy Friends, and Girl Friends

    David Ker is complaining about modern worship songs (since the 90s), and Peter Kirk has partially taken him to task about it, wondering about the air down in Mozambique and whether it causes David to rant. (Personally I suspect it’s looking at too many hippos, but in non-essentials charity, I say!) David continues with a more in-depth piece, Droning, desymbolization and Christian mantra. I think the latter is especially well worth reading, though all three will help set the stage.

    Now I’m going to try to “let my words be few,” but I’ve already written quite a number of words, so that may not be easy. [Note after completing this–I failed.] Since I have an eclectic readership, let me note here that this is written to Christians. It’s internal shop talk and will probably be simply boring or weird to others.

    I’m personally in sympathy with David on this from the point of view of music quality and what makes me worship. Over the years, however, I’ve tried to learn to be less critical. If I find it difficult to handle a song, I look around the congregation and inevitably I see plenty of other people who are quite deeply drawn into the crowd. If I focus on that community, I often find myself drawn in as well–to the worship, not really the music.

    After hearing from friends overseas who must drive a couple of hours to fellowship, and have no options, I have felt very convicted about my complaints regarding local worship services. If I don’t like the worship one place, I can easily move to another. Many Christians can’t. Thus read the following advice with reference to American Christians, and to others only where truly applicable.

    To worshipers, if you can’t stand the worship music, get over it. Worship is a communal activity, and it’s likely that if a particular style of music is repeatedly presented at your church, somebody is being attracted to it.

    I recall one church where my wife and I could barely stand some of the music. It always seemed out of harmony with the worship service itself. But then we noticed that there was almost half of a section of the sanctuary filled with kids, many of whom attended that church without their parents, and those kids were completely involved in the very music that was driving us nuts. We chose to get over it.

    If you can’t get over it, and I admit that this is quite possible, find another congregation. I can think of a few churches I’ve visited where I believe my best efforts to follow my own advice would fail. In that case, you need to find a place where you can become a part of the community.

    There is a third option I hesitate to mention, and that is to try to improve the worship experience of your own church. The problem with this approach is that, barring debates over the color of the carpet, debates over styles of worship can be the most divisive, and frequently lose the goal of the best worship for the community in efforts by individuals to have everything done in their personally favorite style. So if you try this option, do it prayerfully and make sure that you’re trying for the best for everybody and not just for yourself.

    Having said this to members of the congregation, I would like to emphasize a paragraph from David’s second post:

    But, worship leaders also have a key role in this. On the stage, it’s easy to get swept away in the beauty of the music and the enjoyment of the moment and not realize that a hundred people in the congregation have their hands in their pockets and are bored out of their minds. Open your eyes, worship leaders! Be aware of the temperature of the congregation. You are supposed to be leading others in worship not zoning out in the front.

    I send a separate message to leaders and congregants. Leaders, if you see your congregation bored, uninvolved, uninterested, or simply not worshiping, then you have some work to do. It’s fine for someone like me to tell people (especially myself!) to get over themselves and worship. But that’s not an excuse for some of the careless crap that goes on in worship.

    People treat a stumbling presentation of the liturgy as a joke, something nice and folksy about the church. Communion is done so frequently that many pastors don’t take time to connect it to the message and the rest of the liturgy. One gets the feeling of “oh yes, we’ve gotta hand out some bread and wine” from such presentations. Worship leaders don’t pay attention to scripture or theme.

    Rather than being folksy and fun, such things make the congregation treat worship as something unimportant and casual. If the minister can’t even find one sentence to insert in the communion liturgy at the appropriate points (marked conveniently with asterisks in the United Methodist hymnal), or the worship leader can’t be bothered to communicate with the minister and provide musical settings with a sense of connection, then the worshipers are justified in concluding that somebody doesn’t really care.

    But finally, what is this business about boy friends and girl friends? Yes, I finally got to that point. It has to do with “I am so in love with you.” (No, not YOU, someone else!) I believe that in scripture one of the strongest metaphors for the way in which God seeks people and for the bond between myself and God is sexual passion. I don’t mean sanitized, hand-holding, going on a date level passion. I mean the kind of passion that makes one unable to wait to get to the bedroom before the clothes are coming off. I imagine that image offends some. Enjoy being offended.

    Then read Ezekiel 16, for example, and see God’s passion for us represented as the passionate desire of a lover, while unfaithfulness is represented as the passion for someone other than our true spouse. There are many other texts. The problem with “lover” music, in my view, is not so much that we trivialize our love for God by expressing it in the form of cheap love lyrics; rather, it’s that our love for God is often so much more shallow than those cheap lyrics.

    Hmmm. I intend none of this as judgmental about any particular person. There are many of you, such as both David and Peter, whose service for God indicates that they speak from a depth of passion that most stay-at-home American Christians cannot hope to match. If you’re in that situation, please don’t be offended at my suggestions here.

    But if you’re just checking off the boxes of your supposed weekly activities, then give it some consideration. Is your relationship with God a casual date or a life-long covenant?